X-Message-Number: 21924
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:24:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Charles Platt <>
Subject: regulation
Cryonics survives because it is not regulated as a medical procedure. Any
cryonicist who supports the idea of a centralized government that can
impose numerous regulations is, in my opinion, a hypocrite, because (s)he
is basically saying, "It's okay to regulate those OTHER people, but please
don't regulate ME."
Libertarians believe a) personal liberty should be maximized (provided it
is not derived at the expense of someone else's liberty) and b) each
individual has a right to keep what he has acquired legitimately.
Cryonicists believe they should have the liberty to cryopreserve their
remains. They do not agree with regulations that interfere with this
desire. Can they explain to me why cryo-regulations are "bad" while other
regulations are "good"? Isn't this just a typical example of self-interest
trumping espoused political ideology?
Where ownership is concerned, it is illegal in the United States to own an
anatomical donation, because if you could own it, you could sell it, and
we would have a "transplant market" which is considered ethically
unacceptable, probably because of ideas rooted in the sacredness of human
life--ie religious delusions. This is why you can't auction a spare kidney
on eBay, and of course it explains the shortage of transplantable organs:
When you can't own something, you are liable to find shortages and
rationing.
It would be very much in the interests of cryonicists if their cryonics
organization (or an intermediary patient-care organization established by
the cryonicist prior to death) were allowed to own the cryopatient. This
would greatly strengthen the ability to defend the cryopatient against
hostile outsiders, such as Godfearing relatives. The way things are, any
judge can decide that someone else should take possession, and the
organization may be forced to surrender the cryopatient. In other words,
the State can grab your remains. THIS HAS HAPPENED. And you still don't
think the right to private ownership is a good idea?
Anyone who has signed up for cryonics has in effect adopted some
libertarian principles, and is taking advantage of those principles. To
recommend something totally different for everyone else is, as I said at
the beginning, hypocritical.
--Charles Platt
Speaking for himself, etc etc
PS. This whole thread was started by one disabled person who was outraged
by some libertarian concepts and condemned them even though he did not
entirely understand the concepts--and had received donations from
libertarians (among others) who supported his desire to be cryopreserved.
This was a classic example demonstrating that libertarians, far from being
mean and greedy, can be extremely generous; and private charity can
achieve much more than the governmentally controlled redistribution of
wealth.
When cryonics procedures are provided "free" under a brave new system of
socialized medicine, *then* come back and tell me that libertarianism is a
bad idea.
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21924